This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

I'm not sure I should have changed the spelling of credolous to credulous. Here's why not and why I did it anyway:

1. "Credolous" isn't a word according to dictionary.com. The word is normally spelled as "credulous".

2. But when I Google "credolous", I get several logic papers like this one, along with "credolous" in other contexts where it's simply a mistake. So it could be argued that "credolous" is the correct spelling of a technical logic term.

3. But one such logic paper was this: "A General Modal Framework for the Event Calculus and its Skeptical and Credulous Variants", 1996. "Credolous" appears in the body but not the title. So, it could be that other papers copied this spelling, thinking it was an intentional new word instead of a mistake.

4. Anyway, both "credolous" and "credulous" are the opposite of "skeptical", so it would be a lot simpler to spell "credulous" the same way all the time. Art LaPella 21:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Credolous" is not a technical term, just a mistake (that has also been done in several published papers, apparently). Using "credulous" everywhere is the right choice. Paolo Liberatore 16:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply

"Diamond" is commonly used to refer to any rhombus presented with its diagonals horizontally and vertically. Some examples include the diamond suit, the tidal diamond, and the baseball diamond; but I see no reason to single out any one of these to name as "the" inspiration for the name. All of them ultimately derive from the shape of the octahedral diamond gemstone, as depicted in two dimensions.

So, I'm replacing the (unsourced) reference to a baseball diamond, and mentioning the generic diamond shape instead.

68.112.142.248 22:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I second that; the generic two-dimensional "diamond"-shape is the prototype, and "baseball diamond" is one instance of it, as is the diamond-suite symbol. It is spurious at best, and mis-leading at worst, to use the baseball-diamond as an exemplar of this shape.

Druid Squid 22:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC) reply